Lmao, the Crusades were a thinly veiled excuse for looting and pillaging, and every Crusade but the first ended in dismal failure. Only ignoramuses glorify them.
They were also a response to the encroachment of the ottoman empire into europe and the wholesale depopulation of the entire mediterranean coast by ottoman raiders. If you think the crusades were strictly christian aggression then you havent read any history at all.
And they were a remarkable ineffective response, and as the poster below me said the crusaders looted other Christian kingdoms as well. The Crusades do not need to be rehabilitated.
The Crusades do not need to be rehabilitated.
Well to a point, OK. but ‘understood’ is not the same as “rehabilitated”. Writing propoganda into the historical narrative is dangerous, but people do it all the time. I’m not saying you’re doing it.
But when people say “the muslims were just attacked by the christians during the crusades” or “The Jews and muslims have been fighting for thousands of years”. Its just not true and should be understood as best we can, because it informs modern narratives still.
To be clear I’m an ex catholic now avowed atheist and I hate all the abrahamic religions equally.
Oh, so the angry rapey drunk guy is also a xtian.
Imagine that.
Rape and pillage are ancient Christian values. The Crusaders would even loot other Christian kingdoms while on their way to Jerrusalem.
Good luck with your ‘crusade’ cult. [picks up metal baseball bat]
